14 July 2010 5:35 PM

And you were worried about South Africa? Why the rugby World Cup really could be going Down Under

''We're going to shut this town down. We're not out to ruin the World Cup for anyone but the eyes of the world will be on Africa and we want to expose this low-paid economy to the world.'

These are the words of Joe Carolan, spoken at the beginning of the year. He is a campaign organiser for Unite, the largest workers’ union in his country, and he was talking to the media to try to expose the pitiful salaries of the many labourers being exploited for the World Cup.

He was telling a familiar story. Politicians wanted a glossy, global spectacle, but they took little interest in the conditions, and payment, of those essential to its success.

Only Carolan didn’t say Africa. He said Auckland and he was talking about the rugby World Cup.

For a country with its own rugby world cup minister, New Zealand’s preparations for next year’s extravaganza can hardly be deemed a political success. The tournament may be the third biggest sporting event on the planet, but it could well be the last the country can afford.

Organisers expect to make a $40million operating loss, to be underwritten partly by the government and partly by the New Zealand Rugby Union. When it comes to the cost of hosting global games, projected figures always turn out to be laughably optimistic (the London Olympics anyone?) so the fact that the nation anticipates a hefty loss is itself enormous cause for concern. What’s a pessimistic, or even realistic, estimated loss?

Common consensus seems to be that Africa’s first football World Cup was a resounding success and although it was relatively crime-free, incident-free and a priceless lift for the people of the continent, the bill is yet to be paid.

When South Africa won the hosting rights it was predicted the total cost on stadiums and infrastructure would reach $300million but, as it turned out, that figure could not even cover the cost of rebuilding SoccerCity in Johannesburg.

Right now South Africa is a fat man in a restaurant who has just gorged himself on a seven-course dinner off the a la carte menu. With his belly bulging, and his wallet empty, he calls for the bill and puts it on his credit card. He relished the feast but can he stomach the price?

FIFA certainly won’t foot the bill. They make a fortune off media rights, global sponsorship deals and ticket sales, leaving the fat man in the kitchen washing dishes for the next decade or so.

There are many similarities between South Africa and New Zealand in the build-up to their respective World Cups. Both countries are consumed by the relevant sport. Just as Africa is culturally obsessed with football, rugby is part of a New Zealander’s genetic make-up. Just as there were coming out of Africa, there are many stories of unions threatening to strike over low-paid workers, of excessive charges for accommodation and travel, and of stadiums that won’t be ready in time.

So given the success of the African tournament, perhaps New Zealand should also be expected to sort out its many teething problems in time and deliver a successful World Cup. Certainly, the numbers look good. Tourism is expected to rise by seven per cent, 60,000 supporters will travel up and down the country with cash in hand and approximately $500m should be added to New Zealand's Gross Domestic Product.

Only the true cost of Africa’s competition is not yet known. Once the circus has rolled out of town, global spectacles tend to leave behind debilitating bills. For the men on the street, life returns to normal, except with higher taxes to pay off a mountain of debt.

The only addition to everyday life is a once-glittering stadium on the horizon that slowly rusts and decays; a white elephant, symbolic of the unjustifiable financial burden. Will the New Zealand rugby World Cup give the world its first All-Black elephant?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.